Why doesn't Al-Qaeda attack Sweden?

<quote>
So, I was reading this interesting article at Digg.com (which points to this CNN article) and came across an interesting comment:

It also echos the sentiments of Bin Laden who has said (paraphrased) "We attacked because of US foreign policy, not because we hate your freedom as George W Bush would have you believe. If we hated your freedom have him tell you why we did not attack Sweden"

Definitely something to consider next time somebody wants to try and convince you that terrorists attack America because they hate our level of freedom. Even more so when you consider that Sweden ranks much higher than the US in press freedom and is only just behind in economic freedom.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be because Sweden mostly avoids meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations and doesn't try to act as the World Police, right? Naaah, what a ridiculous idea...
</quote>

Interesting point.

son of parnas
September 4th, 2006 10:51am

Yes, interesting point. Short answer -- because Sweden never had troops in Saudi Arabia, in order to take Kuwait back from Iraq.

Thus they did not piss off Bin-Laden, and thus Bin-Laden did not care to attack them.

Right, the "anti-Freedom" slogan is just Bush sloganeering. The "Freedom" Bush is talking about is U.S. 'Freedom' to act in the world. Unfortunately, Bush has now taken this "Freedom" to act badly in Iraq.

But Democrats should be aware -- a knee-jerk reaction that says EVERYTHING Bush did was wrong and incompetent will be self-defeating, even to the Democrats.

Somebody
September 4th, 2006 11:02am

What about the Danish cartoon riots? And the boycotts of all things Scandanavian? Was that about foreign policy?

What about the foiled terrorist train attack in Germany? The riots in France?

"Foreign policy" is a red herring - 'foreign' is meaningless concept when the Dar e-Islam is under discussion. It's all under Allah's eye. Anything and everything is worthy of Al-Qaeda terrorist justification.

(What motivatied al-Qaeda's attack on the WTC in 1993? Hezbollah's attack on French and American bases in Beirut in 1983? Certainly not the goodwill of protecting their fellow Muslims in Lebanon, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia - it's as if good deeds don't earn any points for the West.)

just me
September 4th, 2006 11:08am

> What about the Danish cartoon riots?

Who cares is cartoons riot? Jeesh...

son of parnas
September 4th, 2006 11:13am

>But Democrats should be aware -- a knee-jerk reaction that
>says EVERYTHING Bush did was wrong and incompetent will be
>self-defeating, even to the Democrats.

What DID he do right?

Colm
September 4th, 2006 11:18am

What Bush did right:

He invaded and held key parts of Afghanistan.

He created the departement of Homeland Security, though screwed up the organization and funding pretty well.

He's convinced the American People that only the Republican Party can keep America safe from Terrorism.

***

If Democrats can't convince America that they can take care of America MUCH better than Bush did, they won't win.

Somebody
September 4th, 2006 11:23am

>He invaded and held key parts of Afghanistan.

Most of which has now been lost. Only Kabul and some surrounding areas are under the control of Karzai. bin Laden remains uncaught and al-Qaeda still operates. Violence continues unabated, although it is not reported.

>He created the departement of Homeland Security, though
>screwed up the organization and funding pretty well.

So what did he do right?

>He's convinced the American People that only the Republican
>Party can keep America safe from Terrorism.

Sixty percent now think that terrorism is more likely because of Iraq.

You were saying?

Colm
September 4th, 2006 11:27am

>What motivatied al-Qaeda's attack on the WTC in 1993?
OBL has stated that the WTC attacks were in retaliation for the US-funded, Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. He stated that he wanted Americans to know what it feels like to be Lebanese.

Peter
September 4th, 2006 11:50am

I was saying "If Democrats can't convince America that they can take care of America MUCH better than Bush did, they won't win."

I didn't mean to say that was a hard case to make, just that the Democrats aren't currently making it.

Somebody
September 4th, 2006 11:51am

Actually, you said:

>But Democrats should be aware -- a knee-jerk reaction that
>says EVERYTHING Bush did was wrong and incompetent will be
>self-defeating, even to the Democrats.

But you've so far not managed to come up with a single thing that he did right. Sounds like a good strategy to me. PR works best with consistent, strong and ESPECIALLY knee-jerk messages.

Colm
September 4th, 2006 12:37pm

I think we can credit him with the national Do-Not-Call list. Can that be his legacy? It seems quite popular.

September 4th, 2006 12:41pm

> He invaded and held key parts of Afghanistan.

With the entire US military behind him they could not capture the man repubs crucified clinton for not capturing ealier with far less resources.

son of parnas
September 4th, 2006 1:05pm

> OBL has stated that the WTC attacks were in retaliation for the US-funded, Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

I don't disagree. But there's always a rationale. One can alawys find a rationale. The Hezbollah attacks were on French and American *peacekeepers* in Lebanon. Hezbollah effectively extended the Lebanonese civil war. Why didn't al-Qaeda attack Iran as they were the cause of suffering in Lebanon too? Or why not attack Iraq as the Iraq-Iran war killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims? Why not attack Pakistan as sectarian violence in the south of that country?

Al-Qaeda doesn't recognize the legitimacy of national borders - there is only one Allah, and his power extends everywhere. Hence all non-Muslim policy is 'foreign' and legitimate for attack. (These aren't my arguments.)

just me
September 4th, 2006 1:05pm

> Hence all non-Muslim policy is 'foreign' and legitimate for attack.

They key is why and when did they decide to push their foreign policy rather than fight each other? If oil was never discovered in the sands would 911 ever have happened?

son of parnas
September 4th, 2006 1:07pm

That's a good question, SOP. As oil was discovered at least two generations before the present rhetoric started, one has to wonder whether the connection isn't more complicated than that.

Seems like some sort of sociological variant of the "Dutch disease."

Or a reshifting of power after the end of Cold War (a unilateral world is essentially unbalanced, and some sort of law of "nature" sought a way to counterbalance American power and hubris).